You have misread the (admittedly ambiguous) headline. The ruling is that a chatbot cannot be an author for purposes of copyright. If a chatbot emits a near-perfect copy of previously-copyrighted code then its output is also copyrighted; it's merely another copy of the same work. (If one could show that the chatbot wasn't trained on a bunch of copyrighted material then one might avoid this, but everybody admitted in Kadrey and Thaler that the training phase involved copious amounts of infringement.)